I need a loan in UK

Hello,

I have heared that anyone can get loan if he pay the 10% of the requested loan amount as an insurance. If it's true and working, be my broker. I need: EUR 400.000. and have

10%. I am not UK resident, but I often visit UK. Please inform me about any possibility.

Csaba snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com

Reply to
Csaba
Loading thread data ...

Don't believe everything you hear.

Reply to
Peter Saxton

Why not get it in your own country ?

Reply to
Colin Wilson

Yes, it's no problem. The first thing you need to do is pay the EUR40,000 insurance premium. This needs to be done by Western Union money transfer to our brokerage department in Lagos.

Reply to
GB

Because the money will be used up in the UK.

Col> > I am not UK resident, but I often visit UK.

Reply to
Csaba

Use your loaf. If what you say were true, anyone could get a loan of unlimited size. All they'd need would be 10%. But they could easily get 10% by borrowing it, for which they would need 10% which is 1% of what they ultimately wanted. So we have now established that you don't really need 10%, you only need 1%.

Repeat the reasoning, and you'll see that an arbitrarily small amount of insurance seed money would be enough to get you any amount.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

Idiots don't have loaves.

Reply to
Peter Saxton

Reply to
Csaba

He means it is untrue what you were told.

Tiddy Ogg.

formatting link

Reply to
Tiddy Ogg

That is not true.

The only loans of that size I know about are mortgages (loans to buy a house) There banks will typically lend you up to 5 times your annual income and will often only lend you 90% to 95% of the value of the house you are buying (perhaps that is where this 10% insurance rumour came from?)

What do you want the money for?

Reply to
Gareth

That is only partly true. Although mere individuals will indeed find it difficult to borrow such sums as E400k other than by securing it against a suitable property, big businesses borrow such sums routinely without a mortgage.

Let me point out, if I may be allowed to be a little pedantic (and if not, I'll do it anyway) that a mortgage is not "a loan to buy a house". It is a security given as collateral for a loan to buy just about anything. That is to say, the loan is secured on a tangible asset (usually a house or land but there exist things such as marine mortgages secured on ships or yachts), and although it is usually the case that the purpose of the loan is to buy the asset on which the loan is to be secured, it often isn't.

For example, you might mortgage your house in order to borrow money to buy a yacht, or a car, or a business asset, or to pay to have the roof double glazed. Or you might wish to buy a rental property and have it double-mortgaged, e.g. by funding 80% of its purchase price using a BTL-mortgage (where the loan is secured against the rental property being bought), and by funding the 20% deposit by re-mortgaging your existing house.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Planetarium?

Reply to
Tim

Well if you are allowed to be pedantic then so am I :)

I did say "..that I know about.." and I personally don't have any experience of borrowing money as a big business.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

Reply to
Gareth

In message , Ronald Raygun writes

I actually almost replied to the OP myself (as I am sure you were expecting) but decided not to on the grounds that I was likely to be warned by you for sticking in 'grumpy old pedantic' mode, but now that you are in pedantic mode yourself I feel I can also slip down there to join you.

Firstly can I congratulate you on still remembering everything I have taught you over the years, especially those when you had a different trade name, but secondly I must take issue with you about your use of the words "security given as collateral". It doesn't make sense.

'Collateral' is often used these days in what I think is the American sense and it may even have crept into some UK English dictionaries on the basis that a dictionary reflects usage rather than defines it. What you should have said was "(a)n the act of giving an item as security for loan" or similar. From the lenders point of view 'Security' comes in two types - 'Direct Security' in which the title to the security proffered is in the same right as the debt (and most but not all 'mortgage' lenders insist on this) or 'Collateral Security' in which the title to the proffered security is different to the debtors. The latter arises when a house owned by A is used to secure a debt owed by A&B. Another is my old Staff House Purchase Loan which was granted to me solely although the mortgaged house was owned by my (now ex)wife and I as joint tenants. For purposes other than the purchase of domestic houses banks would often take a mortgage over an asset owned by a completely separate third party as collateral security. I always felt this was on dicey ground on the basis that a mortgagor could possible claim that his security was invalid against the mortgagor on the grounds there may not have been a commercial benefit or relationship between the mortgagor and the primary debtor. Such thinking was used to invalidate inter company cross guarantees in which assets of one company secured the borrowings of another. There was a case which I think was settled out of court in the

1970s which turned on this point and afterwards my bank would only accept intercompany cross guarantees if there was a beneficial trading relationship between the two companies. I could see no reason as to why that principle could not be applied to collateral security or even to guarantees given by parents to assist their offspring buy houses. I think I discussed this point in this NG many years ago with Paul Burridge. Paul! are you still out there lurking? or perhaps under a new trade name perhaps? How did I end up talking about this? Damn, now I cant find my glasses which I need to finish this knitting pattern I've lost, and why did I come upstairs in the first place?.
Reply to
John Boyle

In message , John Boyle writes

sorry - typo! the last word should obviously be mortgagee! (Bah!)

Reply to
John Boyle

Gentlemen,

This project is serious and I am looking for solution. The company have orders to produce the popular drink. We sold more than 50.000 pieces. Product homepage:

formatting link
- Soberade I am actively looking for investor or a joint venture partner. This money is a must to move. If you know the solution or introduce an investor I will give you 1,5 percent. The half of my commission. Please inform me about any workable solution.

Thank you in advance,

Sincerely,

Csaba Halasz

Csaba wrote:

.................. I need: EUR 400.000. and have

Reply to
Csaba

Solarium, more like.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

That's a NASTY website - where is the non-flash version ?

If you're looking to set up in Ireland, would it be easier to import it from there once it's been approved ?

Reply to
Colin Wilson

By me? As if!

What do you mean "down there"? There is no need to suffer from any kind of inferiority complex which would have you believe that pedantry is a "low" attribute (as in lowest of the). Unless taken to pointless extremes, it is rather something to be proud of.

Fair enough, except that the name of the document in question (in the Scottish legal system) is "Standard Security". It would have been weird to have said "a security given as security", and so I needed an alternative word for the second "security", and "collateral", albeit in the American sense (sorry) seemed to fit.

OK, that's a useful distinction of meanings, but at least in this case the word "collateral" is an adjective, so no confusion should arise when "collateral" is used as a noun (as it was by me).

Another problem is that you're using a more specialised meaning of the word, so the disparity of meanings may well be not so much British vs American as general usage vs banking jargon.

Another what? Example? Don't be so careless! :-)

"by my (now ex) wife and *me*" !! :-)

But the security isn't "against" the mortgagee. It is a pledge by the mortgagor which allows the mortgagee to make a claim *against the mortgagor* should the borrower default.

It seems bizarre that the existence or not of a beneficial relationship between borrower and guarantor should have any bearing on the validity of the pledge.

In any case, the existence of such a relationship can always be inferred from the fact that the mortgagor would have no reason to help the borrower in this way unless it is, in some way, on a mutual backscratching basis, though the exact basis could be intangible, i.e. a "favour" of some kind, as it generally would be between family members but can also be between companies.

Another way it can be done between companies without there necessarily being a trading relationship between them is if they are indirectly "the same person" in the sense that they might be owned by the same (or largely the same) shareholder(s). If I controlled two totally separate companies and wanted one of them to borrow, I would probably be happy to pledge the assets of the other as security for the loan.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

"Colin Wilson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@news.individual.net...

If this is a soft drink - apparently designed as a mixer to reduce hangovers - what approval does it need? Does it work is of course another question, as well as how does it work, and how safe are the ingredients? Subject to satisfactory answers, surely this could be a mega-successful product?

Reply to
GB

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.